Churchill's Empire

Winston Churchill is remembered as one of the great figures of the 20th century - a man dedicated to freedom and democracy. He was also an imperialist and implacably opposed to Independence movements in the British colonies. His attitude towards India generally and Mahatma Ghandi specifically could be described as hateful.

Supporting Information

Geraldine Doogue: Winston Churchill is remembered as one of the towering figures of the 20th century. His wartime leadership was a deciding factor in the Allies' victory against Nazi Germany. But he's also known as an Imperialist who was implacably opposed to independence movements in the British colonies. His attitude towards India generally, and Mahatma Gandhi specifically, really could be described as nothing short of venal.

Winston Churchill played a role on the international scene for over 50 highly turbulent years, and his attitudes and actions over this time, are to say the least, paradoxical. Richard Toye is one of the new breed of British historians who's come into prominence. He's based at the University of Exeter in the UK, and he's written a compelling and highly charged biography of Churchill that highlights these contradictions. The biography is called Churchill's Empire: The world that made him and the world he made and Richard Toye joins me now. Welcome.

Richard Toye:Good morning.

Geraldine Doogue:Good evening to you, I know. Churchill was intelligent, impetuous, quick to anger and capable of remarkable good sense and foresight. I suppose I was struck on reading your work by how much of a cavalier he was. I know he's such a paradox too, for you, but would you put him as a 'cavalier'?

Richard Toye:I think that certainly he had that element to him. I think possibly the extraordinary thing is that in so many ways by being difficult with his colleagues and unconventional in so many different respects, it's very tempting to look at him that way. But of course you also have to remember that this was somebody who stayed close to the centre of British politics for, as you say, over 50 years, and actually held a huge range of Prime Ministerial offices. So in a sense, if he'd been so difficult and so nonconformist, he couldn't really have done that. Now admittedly, the circumstances in which he actually came to become Prime Minister were very unusual. He probably obviously wouldn't amaze you if it hadn't been for World War II. But in a sense, we shouldn't allow the more eccentric, if you like, aspects of his character, the fact that this was somebody who understood quite well the British political system and how to stay close to the centre and get to the top of it.

Geraldine Doogue:Front and centre of your account is Churchill's belief in Empire. Now was his adherence to Empire merely a reflection of the times, or are you asserting there's something more peculiar to Churchill which helps us understand or even bewildered by the paradox that he is?

Richard Toye:Well I think it helps us, looking at him helps us understand the times better, in that I think in the past historians had a tendency to say in sort of very blanket ways, Well yes, in order to understand Churchill's Imperial views, you must understand he was a Victorian, and less what being a Victorian meant. The assumption was simply all Victorians were sort of pretty horrible, racists really, and therefore if Churchill held such views then this was only to be expected, and we can't really blame him. But of course in the Victorian world there was actually a huge range of diverse views about the empire, and also about race, and some of these were often very idiosyncratic. So in fact Churchill didn't pick up, although he had this Public School, very elite education with great focus on Empire, his headmaster, Mr Welldon, was very keen on getting the boys to understand the role of Empire, and certainly that influenced Churchill. But equally, when Churchill went out to India as a young man in the Army, he felt his education hadn't really prepared him satisfactorily for his life, and therefore he went about this phase of self-education.

Now one of the important books that he read then, was this extraordinary work called The Marrtyrdom of Man by a man called Winwood Reade and this had many of the sort of racial attitudes, or versions of them, that we would normally associate with the Victorians, but at the same time Winwood Reade - this was really an attack on conventional religion - and it was a sort of a sweeping history which tried to explain, tried to claim that all human progress was driven forward by war. And this was a big influence on Churchill, and certainly it wasn't one of the sort of standard works which you expect to find in a Victorian schoolroom, because by the standards of the time, it was to many people, outrageous.

Geraldine Doogue:But from what I can read though, he did have a quite Darwinian approach to civilisation, that term. He seems to have believed that 'Empire did bring a sort of imperialism, and progressivism' I think you write, 'were parts of the same package. It kept the Empire together by making sure that its very different peoples felt cared for by a benevolent overseer at home.' Very nice to be British and think that, not necessarily to be Kenyan or Australian.

Richard Toye:Well yes, I think that this really gets to the heart of the paradox of Churchill, in the sense that naturally when you from today's perspective where we see that somebody is prepared to say that one race was superior to another, then we have certainly conclusions that we draw about that, and that is enough usually to make us think this person is completely irredeemable in their attitudes, if you like. Now in a sense, you can't understand the sort of Imperial mentality as a whole unless you consider that however misguidedly or wrongly, people generally, the Imperialists generally thought that in effect they were doing the people that they had conquered, a favour. And they thought they were doing this by spreading liberty, which was something that they defined not as giving everybody a vote, but as having the Rule of Law. That is to say that anybody who had a grievance could in theory, go and put their case in front of the court. And so Churchill had this idea, which was very much about 'We're going to spread the British virtues of liberty and help develop these countries in the interest both of the British people and of the people who lived there.' Now we can see that there are all sorts of enormous problems with this, because of course, the people who were being ruled over, weren't being consulted about how was this going to be done. So we can naturally take a rather negative view of it. But I think that we just have to remember that in a sense, being racist didn't necessarily mean that you were completely devoid of all humanitarian sympathies for other races.

Geraldine Doogue:No, quite, but for instance you know, his words were extraordinary of course, I mean marvellous in their defence of democracy and encouraging people to go beyond themselves, but also quite brutal. You know, when Gandhi began his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he 'ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back.' Now was it more noise than action?

Richard Toye:Well I mean of course from the perspective of many Indians, they didn't really see it as just noise, they regarded themselves as being oppressed by the British, and when Churchill was Prime Minister they obviously saw him as being the head of that. And I think that India is probably a special case in the sense that it really clearly brought out very strong visceral feelings in Churchill, and I think that the generally benevolent, if patronising views, which he held towards Africans, I don't really think he had all that many benevolent feelings towards the Indians to be completely frank. I think that's in a way however far you go, the balance of attempting to understand Churchill's Imperial attitude, it does have a point where some things that do strike you as so appalling that there really doesn't need to be any justification. I think you do have to remember that with the Viceroy and the elephant remark, that there was an element, however we unwisely may think about it, where he was trying to be - that was a private remark. He would often try and provoke people where he would say the most provocative thing that he could imagine or could think up when somebody said something that he didn't like sometimes. And this I think did his reputation no good, but often when he actually came to saying things in public, he was a little bit more pragmatic than some of those more unpleasant sentiments would suggest.

Geraldine Doogue:I want to come back to India, but there's another marvellous quote from a New Yorker article actually, giving your book a terrific review, when Churchill was on a visit to a poor neighbourhood in Manchester, and he said, with his typical sort of empathy, but also incredibly condescendingly, 'Fancy living in one of these streets - never seeing anything beautiful, never eating anything savoury, never saying anything clever.' It's a very un-Australian way of speaking, Richard.

Richard Toye:Yes. I think that that quote really does sum up Churchill.

Geraldine Doogue:It's breathtaking actually isn't it?

Richard Toye:It is. He did have these sort of impulses. I mean you know, he actually played an important role in the creation of what we now know as the Welfare State, which was when he was a Minister in the pre-1914 Liberal government. So wasn't just all words in terms of -

Geraldine Doogue:So that's your point, that actually his actions could be far more pragmatic and compassionate.

Richard Toye:Well yes. He felt some sympathy for the people down there, he didn't feel himself to be like them, he didn't really empathise with them, and so in many ways he lacked certain important forms of emotional intelligence really.

Geraldine Doogue:My guest is Dr Richard Toye, who's written a much-praised book called Churchill's Empire: The world that made him and the world he made. Now just to finish off that story about India though, and you're sort of suggesting that he did have certain attitudes, that are, well you certainly can't defend them, but you don't think he acted on his worst qualities, but during the famine in Bengal in 1943, Churchill argued that Bengalis were to blame because they were breeding like rabbits, and people have said, So in fact there was an impact for his attitudes. Others of said, Of course he actually was rather busy at the time defending the Western world against Nazism. It's just this - it's typical isn't it of this - it's extremely difficult to do a fair overall audit of the man.

Richard Toye:Yes, I mean though with the Bengal famine really that isn't any real defence in the sense that yes, he was busy, but people were - I mean remember of course, that he was somebody who claimed to think it was terribly important to keep India as part of the British Empire. Now if you want to do that, then you actually have to look after the people and persuade them that you're helping them. So really, he was shooting himself in the foot, very much on the basis of this strong emotional reaction that I've mentioned. He really didn't want to hear about India, he didn't want to hear about the sufferings of people, he just wanted to shut the whole issue down and get rid of it. Now true, he was very busy, but the Viceroy, Lord Wavell, and eventually managed to get through to the Secretary of State of India Leo Amery and convince him that there was a problem that needed to be dealt with. And still, between them, they had great difficulty getting Churchill to take any notice. Now all Churchill needed to do was to sign a few bits of paper saying 'We're going to divert some shipping to help get some more food to the Indians', which in terms of the scope of the whole Allied war efforts in 1943, was not such a big deal.

Geraldine Doogue:Did Churchill's opposition to Hitler, which of course he's known for as a sort of majestic man of the 20th century, possibly the man of the 20th century, some believe. Did it draw primarily from a determination to maintain the British Empire, or was it a moral repugnance. I mean how do you see it?

Richard Toye:I think that it was both, really. I think that Churchill realised, very rightly, that the British Empire was not something which could be separated. You couldn't sort of withdraw into the British Empire and allow the continent of Europe to get on with its own business. That you couldn't, as he put it, sort of unhitch the British Isles from their moorings and take them across and put them down again next to Canada. Therefore he saw Europe as being absolutely critical to British security and therefore it was important to engage with Europe and not to think that you could just appease Hitler and let him get on with business in his own backyard. But I think there was, you know, a deep moral repugnance which was in fact shared by many of the appeasers as well. It wasn't a question of that many people in Britain thinking that Hitler was a good thing, everybody agreed he was a pretty bad thing, but they disagreed about the way he ought to deal with him.

Geraldine Doogue:Just finally, I wonder how you assess Churchill's legacy? Could I just quote in this New Yorker article, suggests 'He is, with de Gaulle, the greatest instance in modern times of the romantic conservative temperament in power.' I wonder if you agree with that?

Richard Toye:I think that you actually also have to remember the Liberal aspect of Churchill, that he spent 20 years as a Liberal from 1904 onwards, and that he didn't actually sit very happily in the Conservative party in some respects. He certainly did believe in the Empire, and that his playing up of those beliefs helped him appeal to some right-wing Conservatives. But there was always this strain in which he continually emphasised, partly for purely electorally opportunistic reasons, but also I think there'd be an element of sincerity, that he was a Liberal as much as a Conservative.

Geraldine Doogue:Certainly one of the most fascinating men that one could possibly - as I said, people could have written biographies about him when his life ended in 1933, he'd done so much in his life, it's really one of the most - a saga of extraordinary proportions. Richard Toye, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

Richard Toye:Thank you.

Geraldine Doogue:Dr Richard Toye, who's at the University of Exeter. But his book, Churchill's Empire: The world that made him and the world he made is a McMillan publication and you might like to seek it out.

Publications

Credits

Comments (6)

david james baird :

02 Oct 2010 9:00:16am

WHENEVER I hear academics revise or "deconstruct" the Churchillian legacy-I remember,as a young man, teasing my father about The Great Man's follies.I used to cite the Dresden bombing, for instance. It never failed to get under my late father's skin. He fought in the jungles of Burma against the Japanese.He bluntly called me an "idiot" and I was told to go away!Later, as a young showbiz reporter I told Richard Attenborough who directed The Young Churchill (forgive me if that's the wrong title of the movie) about my father's attitude.Attenborough laughed and said this was a typical reaction of the wartime generation in Britain ... for whom Churchill could do no wrong.Attenborough agreed that Churchill had his flaws, but added:"He roared our defiance against Hitler."Modern academics should remember that without Churchill at the helm-Britain may have become another 'satrapy' of Hitler's all-conquering Germany.

Jeff Gillham :

02 Oct 2010 12:18:11pm

Geraldine, you quoted Churchills statement about the people of Manchester as " never having a clever thing to say" then you went on to say that was "unAustralian".That's as condescending and elitist as Churchill-'Australian's could never say anything like that-' is how I read it.

Stephen Coates :

05 Oct 2010 2:21:38pm

Perhaps Churchill was hateful of Mahatma Ghandi, but the feeling was mutual. Nirad Chaudhuri describes the attitude of Ghandi and the Indian population at large towards the British in "Thy Hand, Great Anarch!". When Germany invaded Poland, the Indians became anti-Polish, when Germany invaded Belgium, they became anti-Belgian. Ditto with Norway, Greece, etc and they were pro-Japanese until it appeared Japan might invade Bengal. Ghandi was an admirer of Hitler, even after the second war had commenced, but wished he'd captured these other countries using "non-violence". Perhaps Churchill was justified in his contempt.

Dr Gideon Polya :

22 May 2011 10:00:20pm

Winston Churchill is on record as telling Leo Amery, the UK Secretary of State for India, in 1942: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion". Churchill is responsible for the Bengali Holocaust, the man-made 1942-1945 Bengal Famine in which 6-7 million Indians were deliberately starved to death by the British for strategic reasons in Bengal, Bihar, Assam and Orissa. For the shocking details of the Bengali Holocaust and its whitewashing from British history by holocaust-ignoring and holocaust-denying media, academics, editors, journalists, teachers and politicians see Gideon Polya, "Bengali Famine", Ockham's Razor, ABC Radio National (1999); Gideon Polya, "Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability" (1998, 2008); Colin Mason, "A Short History of Asia. Stone Age to 2000 AD", (2000); Dr Gideon Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen et al, "Bengal Famine", BBC (2008); Madhusree Mukerjee, "Churchill's Secret War. The British Empire and the ravaging of India during World War 11" (2010).